This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Trinity College Dublin, 31 March-1 April 2005

**Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples
**

R. Frank CERMES (ENPC-LCPC), Paris, France

ABSTRACT Two example of design of piles under compressive loadings are examined : one from ground test results and one from pile static load test results. The solutions which are compared follow Eurocode 7 - Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004), as well as a number of National codes. The reasons for discrepancy or for consistency are analysed. EXAMPLES At the occasion of the workshop for the evaluation of Eurocode 7, held in Dublin on 31st March and 1st April 2005, held jointly by ERTC 10 of ISSMGE and by WorkPackage 2 of the GeoTechNet network (funded by EC), 10 design examples have been prepared by Orr (2004). Examples 3 and 4 deal with the design of pile foundations under compressive loadings from ground test results (Example 3) and from pile static load tests results (Example 4). They are the subject of the present report.

**1.1 Pile design from ground test results (Example 3)
**

The problem to be solved, as sent to the participants, is given in Figure 1.

Gk = 1200kN Qk = 200 kN Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values

•

2.0m

GWL

Design situation - Bored pile for a building, 600mm diameter - Groundwater level at depth of 2m below the ground surface Soil conditions - Sand: c'k = 0, φ 'k = 35o, γ = 21kN/m3 SPT N = 25 Actions - Characteristic permanent load Gk = 1200kN - Characteristic variable load Qk = 200kN - Weight density of concrete = 24kN/m3 Require - Pile length, L

• •

L=? Sand φ 'k = 35o γ = 21kN/m3

•

Figure 1. Data for example of pile design from ground test results (Example 3 of ERTC10-WP2 Workshop) 1 R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Trinity College, Dublin, 31st March & 1st April 2005

4m and length = 15m.0 1.2 applies to the 'Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests'.2 Pile design from static load test results (Example 4) The problem to be solved. • Characteristic values of actions Permanent vertical load Gk = 20.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.2.4(1)P for DA 3.6. Clause 7.0 Settlement (mm) Load Test 1 40 60 80 100 120 Load Test 2 Design Situation -Pile foundation.6 5.3 for the actions. Frank.4.0 5. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 . Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.4 for the ground parameters and Tables A.0 40.7. and clause 7.4 Settlement Pile 1(mm) 0 2.2(2)P for Design Approach 1.1 7.6 through A.3(1)P for DA 2 and 2.6.8 for the resistances for piles. 31 March-1 April 2005 1. Dublin.6.0 26.8 for the 'model pile' method. is given in Figure 2.000kN • Require number of piles needed to satisfy both ULS and SLS Figure 2. 2.7. Clause 7.6.000kN Variable vertical load Qk = 5.0 56.1 2.3 applies to the 'Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results'.0 100.5 1.4. Trinity College. Trinity College Dublin. Pile Load (MN) 0 0 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pile Foundation designed from pile load tests Pile Load Test Results Load (MN) 0 0.4.2.0 4. pile diameter D = 0. 2004).9 4.3.3(8) for the 'alternative' method (see Frank et al. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". Table A. in particular.0 Settlement Pile 2 (mm) 0 1.2 static pile load test results provided on driven piles of same diameter and length as design piles.6 6.2 2.1D = 40mm to give the limit load. Data for example of pile design from static load test results (Example 4 of ERTC10-WP2 Workshop) • EUROCODE REQUIREMENTS The general requirements for ultimate limit states applicable to pile foundations (compressive or tensile resistance) are given in clauses 2. clause 7.4.5 2.0 6. 31st March & 1st April 2005 .6.2 10.0 3.4.7. 2 R.3(5)P and Equation 7. The corresponding recommended values of the partial factors γ are given in Table A. (2005).4.2.4 deals with the vertical displacements of pile foundation (Serviceability of supported structures). The building supported by the piles does not have the capacity to transfer the load from weak to strong piles.0 5.3..2.0 6. Piles were loaded beyond a settlement of 0.0 40.FRANK R. Clause 7. driven piles.0 63.0 18.0 14.1 3.0 80.3. The allowable pile settlement is 10mm • Pile Resistance . as sent to the participants.

Portugal. The comparison is interesting. and using equation (7. or because the 'alternative' method of Eurocode 7 was used with and without recourse to a model factor (the latter are the reporter's solutions given in the Appendix to this report). (1961) rules from φ 'k values .1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations) Eleven solutions were received using Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1. (2005). Evaluation of Eurocode 7 . Ireland.Tomlinson (1995) and Berezantzev et al. when feasible.cal. n = 1.cal. (1992) for shaft friction from base resistance q b.8 m (with 8 solutions between 10 m and 20 m). These ranges are indeed very large. To derive the design values of base and shaft resistances. 31st March & 1st April 2005 .cal : from 25 kPa to 100 kPa when using a correlation with N (SPT). Lithuania. qc (SPT) or pl (PMT). DA2 or DA3) does not play any significant role (see below). Thus.correlation factor ξ = 1.other National standards usually based on limit state design (LSD).base resistance qb.shaft friction qs.1.Eurocode 7-Part 1 together with its recommended values (Annex A) or national application of Eurocode 7 . on the other hand.Danish standards DS409/DS415 . which leads to a mean load factor 3 R. β s = Kstanδ vary from 0.Romanian code STAS 2561/3-90 from φ 'k values .model factor γ Rd It is interesting to check for each solution. 1999) (x3) (Other solutions using a National standard including also the Tomlinson-Berezantzev model.4 (when assuming one soil profile. Four contributions were received from Japan. The following calculation models have been used .7) in EN 1997-1) .partial factors γ b and γ s (see equation (7. Trinity College.e.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.cal and of shaft friction qs.49 when using φ 'k values (together with qs = β σ 'v).FRANK R. France. 31 March-1 April 2005 ANALYSIS OF THE SOLUTIONS 3.1 Example of pile design from ground test results For the design example of Figure 1. This can be illustrated by comparing the calculated values of base resistance qb. The ranges of calculated values. the Russian SNIP 2. For three cases using Eurocode 7. Romania and Switzerland). Poland. The Design Approach used (DA1. Trinity College Dublin.20 to 0. Frank. .03-85 model and the Polish standard model).02.0 m to L = 42. 3. either because two calculation models were used (design from N values and from φ 'k values). the solutions usually apply one or several of the following factors : . the ratio of R d/Rcal which is a 'summary' (composition) of the various factors applied on the calculated resistance. are the following : .32 MPa to 5 MPa .5. among which one uses Eurocode 7. 14 different (sets of) solutions are available for comparison.Meyerhof (1976) rules with N (SPT) (2x) .correlation between N (SPT) and pl (PMT) and then French 'Fascicule 62-V' rules (see Frank. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". on the one hand.e.Fleming et al. because the factors on the actions are similar for all the solutions and design approaches (i. It is to be stressed that the calculation models used are mainly responsible for this very large range of values obtained. γ G = 1. two solutions were given by the same author. The solutions were derived using the following design approaches : . i. Dublin.correlation between N (SPT) and qc (CPT) and then DIN 1054 rules (x2) .traditional. and the correlation factors ξ and/or partial factors γ subsequently applied to the calculated values.cal and of shaft friction qs.35 and γ Q = 1. and Japanese experience for base resistance from N (SPT) . ten contributions were received from Europe (Denmark. The range of the results is from L = 10. 2004) with its recommended values or values used at national level. . Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. Germany (x2).cal : from 1. when stated.8) of EN 1997-1) .

2004) with its recommended values (Annex A) or values used at national level. 31st March & 1st April 2005 .min). Only in 3 cases.3 (on Rc. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. Portugal.8 m.0).6 m (5 solutions from Europe and 3 from Japan).Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop. Lithuania.for DA1.FRANK R.2 Pile design from static load test results For the design example of Figure 2.Eurocode 7-Part 1 together with its recommended values (Annex A for ULS) or national application of Eurocode 7 (10 solutions).37) . using a global factor of safety) has been proposed. Nevertheless. Dublin.m in pile static load tests (equation 7. Trinity College Dublin.9 or 10 piles for DA2 (always 10 piles when the recommended values are used).54.2 (on Rc.mean) and ξ 2 = 1. which is near the LSD solutions given in the same contribution. DA 1.9 piles for DA1 for all solutions . These values seem to have been used in most contributions.4 (as if the soil test results were obtained from one soil profile). .0). . The very satisfactory consistency of these results comes from the fact that Eurocode 7 – Part 1 gives quite precise rules for deriving the characteristic resistance R c.k from measured resistances Rc. for Eurocode 7 – Part 1. DA2. even if no settlement criteria are specified (see Appendix).1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations) The application of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1. 3. two or three of the design approaches have been compared (i. it has been compared to a Eurocode 7 design and no real trend appears. which requires to check SLS by means of a bearing capacity calculation. the maximum value (1.e. Poland.2 Serviceability limit states The check of serviceability limit states (SLS) was not explicitly asked for and no allowable settlement had been indicated in the example. Finally.9). and Switzerland). or vice versa. usually based on LSD (10 solutions). and not to the total.e.m. .2 together with recommended values of Table A. .k from measured Rc. except for DA1-Combination 2 (for which the partial factors on the actions are. 31 March-1 April 2005 γ F = 1. The following results are obtained : . eleven contributions were received from Europe (Denmark. For 2 pile static load tests (n = 2).1 to 1.2 m to 17. the correlation factors for deriving Rc. leads to : . the range is from L = 10. The value obtained is L = 14. only one solution with the traditional design (i. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 .the most conservative approach is DA3 (note that there are only 2 answers). and DA3).54) is obtained for DA2 and using ξ = 1.DA 2 appears to be slightly more conservative than DA1 (but never more than 8 %). The following assumptions are also mentioned in the contributions : 4 R.m are ξ 1 = 1. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". near 1.m. 3. among which one uses Eurocode 7. No link between large values of the γ and ξ factors and low (conservative) values of calculated resistance. Frank. In some cases. (2005). except in one case . The ratio Rd/Rcal varies from to 1. The solutions were derived using the following design approaches : . Romania.other National standards. base or shaft resistance provided for by pile load tests).1. Ireland (x2). Trinity College.2. for DA2 (with γ Rd = 1. which is a relatively narrow range. for instance. combination 1 is more conservative than combination 2 and rules the design (this comes directly from the fact that the overall partial factor on the actions for combination 1 is greater than the partial factor on the resistance for combination 2) . 3. France. seems to exist… The minimum value of R d/Rcal (1. When other national LSD standards have been used. Note that DA3 is not applicable (the partial factors being applied to the ground strength parameters.1) is obtained. in principle. the reporter indicated the solution according to the French code 'Fascicule 62-V'.0 and ξ = 1. Germany (x2). Five contributions were received from Japan.

Polish standard .K. On the other hand.Rc. For the ULS design example from ground test results the range of the results is very large.. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1 : General rules. in order to obtain a characteristic load for the SLS criterion (s < 10 mm). 11-15. vol. SHB4. as well as a number of National codes. The reporter's solution given in the Appendix to this report is an example of application of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 following these lines. Randolph.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop. (1961). M. Frank. . London.G.S. Khristoforov. 168 p. EN 1997-1:2004(E). Paris. The solutions come from 9 European countries and from Japan.m values are read on the load-settlement curves for settlement s = 40 mm . the number is between 11 and 15 piles..Danish standard DS415 .the two load-settlement curves are analysed to check that the settlement for the load carried per pile is lower than 10 mm . Evaluation of Eurocode 7 . The discrepancy is attributed to the models used for calculating the base and shaft resistances from the test results. A. "Load-bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundation". .1 (2004). Weltman. the number of piles needed is also found equal to 9 or 10. the solutions are remarkably consistent both for ULS and SLS verifications. Only four solutions from Europe mention the use of a National code for checking SLS. REFERENCES Berezantzev V. The results are also 9 or 10 piles.2. the following national codes have been used : .RLSDB.FRANK R. W. Brussels. 2004) is used.J. EN 1997. .no group effect is taken into account. CONCLUSION The solutions given for two pile design examples have been examined. & Elson.03-85 . Dublin.N. Trinity College Dublin. Proc.Russian SNIP 2.2 Serviceability limit states Most of the solutions deal explicitly with the SLS checks.the group effect is ignored. This is attributed to the precise guidelines given by Eurocode 7 – Part 1 for ULS and to the straightforward analysis of the loadsettlement curves for SLS.Swisscode SC7 . The four Japanese codes have specific provisions for SLS checks. 5 R.Part 1 is used here again the solutions are quite consistent one with each other : . . For the Japanese codes. RSDS and TSPH Japanese codes The number required is also 9 or 10 piles for four of the six solutions from Europe. V.F. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. rather than to the ULS verification format and values of partial factors used. 2. For the 10 mm allowable pile settlement criterion. (2005).French code 'Fascicule 62-V' . 31st March & 1st April 2005 .. When Eurocode 7 . 31 March-1 April 2005 . Trinity College. In the case of the design from pile static load test results.Romanian code STAS 2561/3-90 . (1992). Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN).G. the two load-settlement curves are 'combined' in the same manner as for the limit loads for ULS. except in one solution (which leads to a larger number of piles) .the serviceability load is Gk + Qk = 25 MN. which lead to the same number or a slightly greater number of piles than for ULS checks. 5th Int Conf Soil Mechanics and Found Engng. Surrey University Press. 3.02. Fleming .usually. November. Piling Engineering. W. & Golubkov V. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples".K.

with no indication of the number of soil profiles (the 'model pile' procedure of clause 7. J Geot Engng Div.6. i. Design Approach 3 is not relevant to semi-empirical models like the PMT rules. thus for N = 25. March. Schuppener. The relevant recommended values are given in Tables A. Dublin. i.0). 2004) requires checking ultimate and serviceability limit states.. Krebs Ovesen.6 m is the pile diameter) : Rs. Longman. Therefore.25 = 1.cal = 387 + 132 L (in kN and m) II..0 and γ s = 1.3. London. on the contrary. as no limitation is set on the settlement of the pile. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 . T. Presses de l’École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées. these models use. Foundation design and construction. N.. after using a correlation between the PMT limit pressure pl and SPT blow count N. 102. In the following two different assumptions will be made: A. see Note below clause 7. nor any accidental action is to be taken into account.885x70 L = 132 L (in kN and m) c) The total compressive resistance is : Rc. Therefore. Design Approaches 1 or 2 may be used. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. Designer's guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design .37 = 387 kN b) The unit shaft friction at all depths z is : qs = 70 kPa (line Q2 for bored piles under bentonite mud or temporary casing. Am. C. Design Examples for Eurocode 7 Workshop at Trinity College on 31 March and 1 April 2005. ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 document.2. R. No. as it means factoring ‘at the source’ the parameters of shearing resistance by γ M > 1.7 of Annex A in EN 1997-1. 31st March & 1st April 2005 . APPENDIX : SOLUTIONS OF THE REPORTER Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values I. For Design Approaches 1 and 2. T. Frank.0). the 'alternative' procedure of clause 7.2. qs and qb calculated above cannot be considered to be characteristic values. Frank.(1976).e. it is believed that the recommended values of Annex A of EN 1997-1 are applicable.. Tomlinson M. 7 p. Thomas Telford. pl = 1. Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes. in medium dense sand B) The total shaft friction is (B = 0. qs and qb calculated above can be considered to be characteristic values.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.2. 141 p. 216 p. (2004). Bauduin. the following is restricted to ULS for persistent and transient design situations.cal = Π Β ∫ qsdz = 1. without recourse to a resistance model factor larger than 1.3(8) in EN 1997-1. together with γ b ≥1..6. Harlow.37 MPa The total base resistance is : Rb. Introduction : calculation of compressive resistance from soil parameter values The compressive resistance is determined below from the pressuremeter (PMT) rules used in France. Roger (1999).0. B. GT3. Soc. In this example. where kp is taken equal to 1. thus: qb = 1.FRANK R. Orr.. Design Approaches 1 and 2 for ULS in persistent and transient design situations In the case of ultimate limit states (ULS) for persistent and transient design situations. (2005).1x1.25 MPa a) The unit base resistance is qb = kp pl(at z= L).e.14x(0. 31 March-1 April 2005 Frank. : for sands pl = N/20 (in MPa). 6th ed.cal = Π (B²/4)qp = 3. γ b = 1. (1995). Trinity College Dublin. Meyerhof G. Kavvadas. M.3(5) is not applicable). Orr. (2004). γ M = 1.4 and A. Civil Engrs. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples".0.General rules.3(8) in EN 1997-1 has to be used. because we only have the soil parameter values.36/4)x1.6. R.cal + Rs.cal = Rb.1 (bored pile in medium dense sand B). 23/12/2004.G. because they are derived from a cautious estimate of N (and pl) and some conservatism has been input in the calculation rules. "Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations". Trinity College. B. Driscoll. A.0 and γ s ≥ 1. Eurocode 7 Eurocode 7-Part 1 (EN 1997-1. because they are derived from N (and pl) values which are not meant to be cautious and no real conservatism has been input in the calculation rules .. it is believed that the recommended values of Annex A of EN 1997-1 are applicable.0 (and not the base and shaft resistances themselves. but with recourse to a resistance model factor larger 6 R.J.

8 m (the larger of the two lengths. The design load is : Fc.d ≤ Rc.4.Gk + γ Q. with sets A1. Thus.35 x 1200 + 1. M1 and R2 (see clause 2. Dublin.k / γ b + Rs.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.5 Qk = 1.6 + 132 L The condition Fc.1.25 + 105. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 .d = γ G.d ≤ Rc.d ≤ Rc.6 L/1.1.0 = 247.3.d = Rb.d leads to L ≥ 13.6/1.d ≤ Rc.d = γ G.d leads to L ≥ 15.25 + 132 L/1.cal/γ Rd Design Approach 1 Combination 1: According to clause 2.d ≤ Rc.25 = 309.cal/γ Rd = Rb.FRANK R.k = (387 +132 L)/1. M1 and R4 are used.7.4 and A.6 m.8 + 120 L The condition Fc.1. for Design Approach 1. for the purpose of using EN 1997-1.7.k / γ s = 309. sets A1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc.5 Qk = 1.7 are used.3.6 + 105.4. Qk = 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN 7 R.4 and A.d = γ G.3 x 200 = 1460 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc. A.1. A.4.k / γ s = 387/1.0 x 1200 + 1.k / γ s = 309.Gk + γ Q.k = Rc.3 x 200 = 1460 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc.3(8) in EN 1997-1): for the purpose of this example the value γ Rd = 1. Qk = 1.k / γ b + Rs.8 m. sets A1.3.d = γ G. The design load is : Fc.d leads to L ≥ 15.3. In conclusion.Gk + γ Q.4.0 m.d = γ G.4 and A.k = Rc. In conclusion.6/1. with sets A1. Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model Assumption B : Rc.cal Design Approach 1 Combination 1: According to clause 2.7 are used. for Design Approach 1.2 m . Trinity College. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". Trinity College Dublin. The design load is : Fc.Gk + γ Q.k + Rs. (2005).3. 31 March-1 April 2005 than 1.7 + 105. the two following sets of calculations will be performed (kN and m are used): Assumption A.k / γ s = 387/1.7.k / γ s = 387/1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc.d = Rb.5 Qk = 1. M1 and R2 (see clause 2. given by Combination 1). Design Approach 2 Only one combination is relevant.d = Rb.7).0 x 1200 + 1.0 (see Note below clause 7.35 x 1200 + 1.k / γ b + Rs. and Assumption B.6 L/1.cal = Rb.d = Rb. The design load is : Fc.0 = 309.k = Rc.1 m.6.k = Rc.5 L The condition Fc.6 L The condition Fc. the result is L ≥ 15. given by Combination 1).9 + 101. A. 31st March & 1st April 2005 . Frank. Rc.5 Qk = 1.5 + 81.k / γ b + Rs.6 L Assumption A : Rc.k / γ b + Rs.4.2.2 (2) P.k + Rs.3. Design Approach 2 Only one combination is relevant.6 + 105.25 is selected.d = Rb.3 (1) P and Tables A. Combination 2: Sets A2.4.d leads to L ≥ 12.35 x 1200 + 1.3.2 L The condition Fc. M1 and R1 of Tables A.7).3 = 193.5 x 200 = 1920 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc. A.Gk + γ Q.4. The design load is : Fc.d leads to L ≥ 12. M1 and R1 of Tables A. The design load is : Fc.4 and A. Rc. Combination 2: Sets A2.3 = 241.35 x 1200 + 1.k = 387 + 132 L.Gk + γ Q.3 (1) P and Tables A.6 + 132 L/1.3. M1 and R4 are used.4. the result is L ≥ 12.1 + 132 L/1.2 (2) P.d = γ G.1 = 351.7.2 m (the larger of the two lengths.

4 L/1. Using EN 1997-1 and recommended values in Annex A Determination of characteristic compressive resistance : The measured ultimate compressive resistances are (from readings at settlement s = 0.6/1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN The design resistance of the pile is : Rc.1 m (assumption A) and to L ≥ 17. 31 March-1 April 2005 The design resistance of the pile is : Rc.4) in French practice assumes that reasonably 'true' values of qb.1 = 175.6. (2005).3(8) in EN 1997-1.1 for characteristic (rare) combinations and 1.k = 387 + 132 L The load factors are the same as Set 1 of Table A.375 for DA-2-Assumption B (including the value of the model factor chosen equal to 1.d ≤ Qd yields L ≥ 16.cal are used as characteristic values.d ≤ Qd yields L ≥ 14.1 m (assumption B). Evaluation of Eurocode 7 .7 Rs. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.25). Dublin.k) and its value is γ t = 1.40.d leads to L ≥ 17.d(rare) = Gk + Qk = 1200 + 200 = 1400 kN Qd(SLS) = 193/1.1 m.d = Rb.1.cal = Rb.35 x 1200 + 1.9 + 66. combination 1 is more conservative than combination 2.d = Rc.1 = 1.1 + 92.FRANK R.2.4 + 94.3 L The condition Fc. Frank.5 x Rb.k / γ s = 309.Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.1 m. III. Trinity College. The resistance factor for ULS in persistent or transient design situations is applied on the total resistance (Rb.6 L/1.k / γ t = (387 + 132 L)/ 1. The result is very near the results for DA-2 and assumption B with EN 1997-1. Rc.4 = 137. With regard to Design Approach 1.3 (in Annex A of EN 1997-1).k + Rs. Pile Foundation designed from pile load tests I.4 m.cal + 0. for this example (with dominant shaft friction).5 + 96. Quasi-permanent combinations Fc. Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model Conclusion for Assumptions A and B : when using Eurocode 7-1 (EN 1997-1) for ULS in persistent or transient design situations.6 m.4 for quasi-permanent combinations.25 x 1.d ≤ Rc. ULS in persistent and transient design situations Present French practice is very near DA-2 of EN 1997-1.4 L The condition is Fc.d (SLS) ≤ Qd (SLS) = Qc/γ SLS with γ SLS = 1.1 = 281.1D = 40 mm) : 8 R. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". Present French practice In present French practice both ULS and SLS are derived from a condition on the bearing capacity of the pile. 31st March & 1st April 2005 . and uses a direct determination of qsk and qbk from soil test result (like Assumption A above).cal = 193 + 92. Design Approach 2 is the most conservative. Conclusion Both ULS and SLS checks are fulfilled with L ≥ 17.d(rare) = Gk = 1200 kN Qd(SLS) = 193/1.d ≤ Rc.5 Qk = 1.Serviceability Limit States The SLS load is determined through the creep load Qc which is linked to the bearing resistance through the following correlation for bored piles: Qc = 0. Trinity College Dublin. The high value of the resistance factor (1. if no limit on the settlements of the structure is specified. Characteristic combinations Fc.4 L/1.d = γ G.1 + 105.Gk + γ Q. This is not surprising since the value of the factor applied to the calculated resistance is 1.k / γ b + Rs.4 + 84 L The condition Fc. as it leads respectively to L ≥ 13.0 L The condition Fc.4 in French practice and is 1.0 L The condition Fc.k + Rs. with the 'alternative' method of clause 7.cal and qs.4 m.4 = 276.d leads to L ≥ 17.4 + 92. The design load is : Fc.k = Rc. SLS.

08 According to DA1-Comb 1.1.6).Gk + γ Q.0 = 4.k / γ t = 4. the calculations are identical to DA2.d = γ G. Combination 1: Sets A1.5 Qk = 1.5 MN approximately.2. with ξ ' = 0.0 MN and 3. Hence.max) .e.08/ 1.m mean .min (Rc.Gk + γ Q.d = γ G.5 Qk = 1.0 MN . 34. i.4. 4.08 MN 1. From Table A.5/3.2(8)P is applied.4.1.d = Rc. which is the most severe one (used for irreversible limit states.m)mean = 5.3.6)0. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". for n = 2 pile load tests : ξ 1 = 1. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.35 x 20 + 1. 5.3. Qk = 1.70 MN The design value is : Rc. 31st March & 1st April 2005 .d = Rc.k = Rc.5 MN The design resistance for one pile is : Rc.5/3. ξ ' The characteristic value is Rc.Gk + γ Q.3 x 5 = 26.2 (2) P and Tables A.FRANK R. SLS – Serviceability check 9 R.k / γ t= 4. M1 and R2 (see clause 2. Rc. 26. Fm.14 MN. Thus.08 . respectively.70/1.0 R c.55 for two pile load tests.5 MN (approximately). 31 March-1 April 2005 Rc.4 and A.7. Sets A2.5 x 5 = 34.d = Rc.6.5 x 5 = 34.08 = 9 piles are also needed. whatever the Design Approach used for ULS requirements. Hence.08/ 1. Fc. Dublin.2) reads : (R ) (R ) Rc.35 x 20 + 1.4 and A.30 1.3 = 3.k / γ t = 4.0 (5. ULS in persistent and transient situations – Design Approach 2 Only one combination is relevant.m min ξ1 ξ2 with (Rc.1.d = 4. Trinity College. The design load is : Fc.k = Min .k = 2.k /γ t with γ t = 1.d = Rc.m2 = 5. A. Trinity College Dublin.7.55 = 4.4 = 3.08 / 1.k = Min c.30 and ξ 2 = 1. Frank.3.d = γ G.5 MN The design resistance for one pile is : Rc. except for the values of ξ 'and γ t .5 MN The design resistance for one pile is : Rc.0 x 20 + 1.3 (1) P and Tables A. and Rc.Gk + γ Q.0/5.5 Qk = 1.9.d = γ G.20 ULS in persistent and transient situations – Design Approach 1 Combination 2 is usually leading the geotechnical design. see EN 1990). Equation (7.5 x 5 = 34. M1 and R4 are used (clause 2.71 MN The number of piles is 34.1 = 3. A. Conclusion According to ULS + SLS : 10 piles are needed. = Min { 4. When examining the two measured load-settlement curves. c.6 MN Clause 7. with sets A1.20 . II. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 .Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.6).3 5.m1 = 5.36 MN On the other hand.71 = 10 piles.5 MN Thus 10 piles are needed.4.3.4 for persistent and transient combinations.4.min/Rc. Rc. 10 piles must be used in order to keep the pile settlement lower or equal to 10 mm.35 x 20 + 1. The characteristic value for 10 mm can be assessed in the same manner as the characteristic bearing resistance. thus. Present French practice ULS in persistent and transient situations For ULS under persistent and transient combinations.0 MN. (2005).14 = 9 piles are needed. The design load is : Fc.k = 5. M1 and R1 are used. SLS – Serviceability check The characteristic load Gk + Qk = 25 MN is relevant for the characteristic combination.5/4. Thus.3 MN and (Rc. The design load is : Fc. according to DA1-Comb 2. the settlement is 10 mm for measured loads Fm equal to 3.m)min = 5.17 } = 4.

5.k /1. "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples". i.5. no displacement calculation is explicitly required). Frank.5 = 3. 31st March & 1st April 2005 . (2005). Qc = 4. 10 R.13 MN. For driven piles Qc = Rc/1.e. Trinity College. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 . It can be concluded that SLS requirements are satisfied. SLS are checked by comparing the creep load Qc to the applied load.70/1. Dublin.e. Trinity College Dublin.5 MN .Two pile foundation design examples ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop.FRANK R. The applied load per pile is Gk + Qk = 25 MN/10 = 2. 31 March-1 April 2005 In present French practice. Conclusion : According to ULS + SLS : 10 piles are needed. if there is no limiting value for the vertical displacement of the structure (i. Qc = Rc. Thus. Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. This result is the same as for EN 1997-1.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- DESIGN OF PILES USING EURO CODE-7
- Design Examples for the Eurocode 7
- Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design-General Rules-Guide to en 1997-1
- piglet manual
- Pile Foundation Design
- Piles Foundation
- Bridge Design Eurocodes Worked Examples
- Design of Pile Foundations
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 1 - Actions on Bridges
- How to Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2
- Design of Pile Foundations Following Eurocode 7
- 08 - Pile Cap - 2 Pile
- Pile Foundation Design Example
- Burj Dubai Foundation
- Lecture - 08 - Foundation Settlement Analysis
- Eurocode 7 - A Commentary
- Schedule of Rates for Civil Works - Public Works Department (PWD), Bangladesh
- Pile Design
- Eurocode 7
- Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice
- BRE - Eurocode 7, A Commentary
- Applied Analysis in Geotechnics, F Azizi
- Soil Mechanics Concepts and Applications William Powrie
- pile capacity
- Pile Design
- Pile Capacity Calculation (12!12!2011)
- Geotechnical Engineering Handbook3
- Raft Foundation Analysis and Design Example
- Design-of-Pile-Foundation.xls
- Timber Piling
- Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.